The Supreme Court of the United States is a nationally recognized symbol of law and Justice it serves. Each case will set a new precedent for how future cases will be upheld in court. Throughout my research I had a difficult time finding a common thread within each case. Engel v. Vitale as well as Citizens v. the FEC both had to do with the 1st Amendment and the issue of religion and free speech. Whereas in the case of the U.S. v. Lopez the 2nd Amendment was in question and the right Lopez had to bear arms. These cases are vastly different but all continue to shape the way our Justice system functions in society.
Engel v. Vitale originated in New York when a group of parents sued the school board on behalf of their children. At this time it was New York State Law that public school start each day with the Pledge of Allegiance as well as a nondenominational prayer. Though this law allowed children to excuse themselves from this proceeding the parent ensued that this law violated the Establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. The case was first heard by the New York State Supreme court which did not rule in favor of Steven Engel, the father of one of the children. Instead this court ruled in favor of the defendant, the head of the school board William Vitale. Vitale stated that the prayer was completely voluntary and therefore did not go out of bounds of the 1st amendment. The way Engel put it, even though the prayer was voluntary the prayer itself went against the Establishment clause of the 1st Amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." After three courts ruled in favor of Vitale, the case finally went to the supreme court on April 3, 1962. The supreme court came to a 6-1 ruling in favor of Engel. The majority, via Justice Hugo Black, was liberal reflecting the liberal court in which the case was heard. The ruling stated “…in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people.”
In March 1992, a high school senior by the name of Alfonso Lopez walked into his school with a concealed handgun. Lopez was charged with violating the Texas statute that prohibits carrying a firearm on school grounds. The state charge was quickly dropped when Lopez was charged on the federal level with failing to comply to the Gun-Free School Zones Act. Lopez plead not guilty and his attorneys moved to dismiss the charge on the grounds that Congress had overstepped its authority by passing the act under the commerce clause. The federal district court denied the motion to dismiss while Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated otherwise. On November 8, 1994, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of Lopez with conservative Chief Justice Rehnquist writing for the majority and reflecting the conservative court. Rehnquist stated that Congress does not have the authority to enact any legislation it wishes. This argument greatly pertains to the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms. Lopez argued that Congress authority had not place in his right to carry a concealed weapon and moreover he one his case. Guns are a very touchy subject in today's political atmosphere, especially within schools. If this case was retried I find it hard to believe in would end in the same verdict.
In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that political spending is a form of free speech under the 1st Amendment in the case Citizens United v. FEC. In 2008 the non-profit organization called Citizens United filed an injunction against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in order to prevent the application of the BCRA to its documentary Hillary: The Movie. The BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) prevents corporations from using their general treasuries to fund political advertisement for or against a candidate for federal office within 60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary election. The U.S. DIstrict Court did not rule in favor of Citizens United but when this case reached the Supreme Court on January 21, 2010 the court reached a 5-4 verdict via Chief John Roberts in a coservative court. The vote was in favor of Citizens United stating that 1st Amendment protects the right to free speech, even if the speaker is a corporation. It has become consistently more difficult to navigate corporations involvement in politics and this gate opened up a flood gate of questions on how corporations are allowed to influence politics.
Work Cited: Darko, Jeffrey Ohene. "Engel v. Vitale." American Experience, 22 June 2017,
www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/engel-v-vitale/. Accessed 19
Aug. 2019.
"Facts and Case Summary-Engel v. Vitale." United States Courts, www.uscourts.gov/
educational-resources/educational-activities/
facts-and-case-summary-engel-v-vitale. Accessed 19 Aug. 2019
Anderson, Jon E. "United States v. Lopez." Encyclopedia Britannica,
www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-v-Lopez. Accessed 19 Aug. 2019
"Citizens United vs. FEC." HISTORY, 24 Jan. 2019, www.history.com/topics/
united-states-constitution/citizens-united. Accessed 19 Aug. 2019.
Duignan, Brian. "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission."
Encyclopedia Britannica, 27 June 2019, www.britannica.com/event/
Citizens-United-v-Federal-Election-Commission. Accessed 19 Aug. 2019.
Comments
Post a Comment